Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering genom att använda knappen längst ned.

ARK261 2012, ARK261

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-01-17 - 2012-01-31
Antal svar: 18
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 78%
Kontaktperson: Peter Fröst»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Arkitektur 300 hp
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: Arkitektur 300 hp

Goals and fullfilment of goals

The learning outcomes are given in the course programme, that is the knowledge, understanding, skills and perspectives you are expectd to reach. Notify for each outcome how well they have been fulfilled.

1. Learning outcome 1

Knowledge, strategies, and methodologies to formulate visions for health care architecture, as well as practical skills to design and integrate an actual health care building.

18 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»6 33%
Excellent»12 66%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Just one detail: Maybe have the seminar in the same time than the workshop at the beginning of the course. Cause i learn a lot, and it could help me in the design process» (Excellent)
- great site visits, lectures and workshops. very informative and inspiring.» (Excellent)
- It"s good that we were handed relevant litterature with different focus and the study visits and contact with the Linköping staff also helped to increaase or field knowledge. » (Excellent)

2. Learning outcome 2

Be able to work interactively with complex programming, combining aspects of spaces for care, patient experience, work environment, logistics and architectural systems think-ing.

18 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»8 44%
Excellent»10 55%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.55

3. Learning outcome 3

Knowledge and applicable skills in designing flexible buildings. Applying modular planning and strategies for continuous change with unknown spatial typologies.

18 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»1 5%
Sufficient»9 50%
Excellent»8 44%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.38

- I think the modular planning could be taught more in detail. e.g, why the grid should be times of 300mm, or which grid is more efficient according to construction.» (Sufficient)
- There could have been some more discussion about the importance of rationality, in terms of flows in hospital buildings.» (Sufficient)

4. Learning outcome 4

Understand, and be able to apply the concepts of healing architecture and Evidence Based Design.

18 svarande

Very insufficient»0 0%
Insufficient»0 0%
Sufficient»7 38%
Excellent»11 61%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- loved having roger ulrich come along, as well as having the readings on pdf» (Excellent)

5. Are the aims and goals reasonable in relation to your pre-knowledge ?

18 svarande

No, the goals are to elementar»0 0%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»16 94%
No, the goals are too ambitious»1 5%
No opinion»1

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- It"s a lot of work, but i learned a lot. So for me the goals are reasonable.» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- the goals maybe are a bit high... the program is very big» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- The goals are reasonable, but to achieve a really good result, we had to work extremely many hours. » (Yes, the goals are reasonable)

6. Are the goals reasonable in relation to the scope and amount of credits?

18 svarande

Too small scope in relation to credits»1 5%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»15 83%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»2 11%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- They are rather reasonable for a fifth year course but the project was very time- and energy consuming. But it was worth it.» (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)
- The amount of drawings that should be produced request far more time than 8 hours per day.» (Too wide scope in relation to credits)

Education and course administration

7. What support have you got for your learning from course literature and other material?

18 svarande

Very little»0 0%
Rather little»1 5%
Rather big»11 61%
Very big»6 33%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- Maybe with having more time for reading, it could be better. In a way, we had time to read and look at some material, but we spent it on the project instead of the reading. Just because the project demand a lot of work. Not because the lecture/reading/material are boring ...» (Rather big)
- Really great with a lot of weekly tutorials. The tutorails improved the further in the process we got, and it could have been more helpful to have someone with a lot of psychiatry design experience to adress some of our questions.» (Rather big)
- The literature was highly relevant, but the input from it came a little late» (Rather big)

8. How did the organisation, memoranda, direct information etc. function?

17 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»1 5%
Rather well»9 52%
Very well»7 41%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- Some information was rather vague and interpretable and there were some misunderstandings during the project, e.g. about the literature seminar and the written report. Sometimes the information was given from the teacher to one of the students and spread in the studio but several of the students were in other computer rooms and missed that information. » (Rather bad)
- there was some confusion in transmission of shared files and documents. it would be good if all the information, including student group work was kept in one place. sometimes it was hard to know where something was.» (Rather well)
- Some of the information was only spread within the studio room, which meant that all information did no reach students sitting in computer rooms. Further, the information that we did not have to solve the whole brief should have been reached to everyone. Apart from this, good! » (Rather well)
- The time for the seminar and literature could have been better organized.» (Rather well)
- the studio room should be bigger possibly» (Rather well)

Work environment

9. How do you rate the possibilities to get assistance and ask questions?

18 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather well»5 27%
Very well»13 72%
I have not asked for assistance»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- The teachers were not working at university full time, we had to ask questions via email» (Rather well)
- Very Very well. That is the highest quality of the course/teacher.» (Very well)
- The amount of consultation was very good and sufficient.» (Very well)

10. How has the cooperation between you and students in your group been?

18 svarande

Very bad»1 5%
Rather bad»0 0%
Rather good»6 33%
Very good»11 61%
I have not tried to cooperate»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- One of my group mates refused to accept the other group members opinion, she had a rude behavior and changed the design without informing other group members.» (Very bad)
- It was sometimes hard work efficiently with such a big protect during such short time with a new working partner.» (Rather good)
- peter started the session by promoting the nature of student cooperation to be uncompetitive and sharing.» (Very good)
- Both the prestudy and the climate within the studio has been great. Please continue future classes to cooperate!» (Very good)

Concluding questions

11. What is your overall opinion of the course?

18 svarande

Very bad»0 0%
Bad»0 0%
Passed»1 5%
Good»2 11%
Very good»15 83%

Genomsnitt: 4.77

- The idea with this course is very good, the problem is the amount of time for the amount of work. All students were very stressed and you could feel the pressure as soon as you entered the room. Students looked stressed and sometimes angry and often in conflicts with each other. The group members expected other group members to work more intensive in order to able to be done in time. Some group members in different groups were giving orders and other group members were scared and worked for them. The absence of teachers at the studio made so that they could not see and feel this. This course need to have also a full time employed teacher assistant who more often looks into the room and observes the working environment. My friends who studied other units told me that they could see that I was stressed, got a bad attitude and behaved aggressive towards them.» (Passed)
- Important aspects have been treated and I"ve learned better how to deal with such big project.» (Good)
- The most practical and informative course ive done on architecture.» (Very good)
- As I heard last year this course was one of the best courses, and it delivers this year as well. Good work both Peter, Björn and the other involved staff.» (Very good)
- Personally, having Bjorn Gross and Peter Frost for the course is a good collaboration. Peter provides the technical aspect of the healthcare architecture with his experience and knowledge. Whereas, Bjorn is skilled with his artistic and abstract view of the architecture language. It"s important when faced with a building or architecture program with high demand in organization and technical requirement - but still have an architectural language and concept. There is a critical need to identify the balance between the functional requirement and the areas where freedom of architectural expression is suitable and available. » (Very good)
- The best course in the MPARC program!» (Very good)
- This course should be mandatory. Even students who don"t plan to work with healthcare design in the future could have so much use of this course since it deals with such complexities in the brief etc. You need to be aware of and take so many different factors into consideration.» (Very good)
- The support and encouragement from the teachers was a big support to complete the project.» (Very good)

12. What should be preserved next year?

- Atmosphere in the studio, small workshops and guest lectures »
- workshops and lectures.»
- In my point of view, the course was complete in any aspect. I enjoyed and learned a lot, from design methods and literature to group work and dealing with complexity of design within the group.»
- the entire course, and the way of teaching.»
- all.»
- Literator seminar supposed to be during the workshop before starting the designing process»
- Very good overall. litterature seminar should be planed in another way so... should be before design process has started.»
- I think, as much as possible. Everything was good and valuable.»
- the work shops, lectures and study trip to other hospitals»
- The openness for own interpretation to the brief. Even tho it was frustrating not knowing the brief, but it also allowed freedom to take the brief into the next level. I think one key advantage of this course that is different to the other courses is the experience it gives students to really understand the dialogue and conversation between an architect and the client. From this course you can clearly understand that people outside the architecture knowledge have a different way of describing and seeing a building.It was critical to understand what information was crucial and important, and which ones you should hold on to and take it further in the design process. The collection of data was a bit messy, but still manageable. But overall there was a clear image of what it could be trying to "de-code" the clients vision into a brief to work on. »
- Study visits, lectures.»
- The obstruction workshops, the continous tutorials, the study visits, most of the lectures. Also, setting up a structure system, like the 3M proposed by the teachers, was valuable to enable a flexible construction. Going back to present the projects to the hospital staff was great, as we have worked hard and get appreciation for it.»
- The clear aim of an office-atmosphere in the studio, instead of "competition". The amount of consultation. The intense start of the course with a lot of lectures and study visits.»
- Study visits and lectures were of great value.»
- workshops and organization of the course (forst input -three themes and then work on the project)»

13. What shuold be changed the nest year?

- Nothing »
- i feel in the mid crits when you still have time to change the projects we should have an archit ectural critic instead of non architects.»
- Unfortunately our group couldn"t work in the studio and was away from other groups most of the times. The studio didn"t have good ventilation at all and caused head aches. »
- Just put the seminar earlier in the design process if it"s possible.»
- Litteraturseminariet bör komma i början av kursen. Inte i mitten eller slutet.»
- The amount of time or amount of regusted work. more time or less work.»
- maybe shorter pre-study and longer time for design »
- Nothing I can think of.»
- I understand the tight schedule of the course - especially the complexity of the building. The workshops are good for exploration, but I think students would have gained more if they were carried out "after" a brief was available. It was difficult of really give effort into the workshops when the brief was still unclear - and students were asked to design about the circulation or organisation of programs - "what programs?" But i do understand and respect the workshops and the intentions behind them. But i am confident the result would be higher from the workshops if they were based on a brief that was ready. But nevertheless, a good structure to the course. »
- For me it was too much work shops and too little analysis of the program and organisational needs in the beginning. The seminar should be carried out earlier, not having reading time parallell with project as it is all very intensive.»
- Göran Lindahls lesson was to me not very valuable, as it mainly focused on the building process in a stakeholders perspective and thus the construction contractors. I also think it is important that we could stick to a set date for the litterature seminar, as for us having read a whole lot for the original date this was an inconvenience.»
- The literature should be earlier in order to really be able to use more of the information for your design. Better/more clear communication.»
- A bigger focus on literature in the beginning of the course to be able to create strategies for the design»
- bigger studio room, another room for meeting and presentations»

14. Other comments

- the studio overall has been very fruitful and i am personally very happy to be a part of such a wonderful studio and i have a lot of respect for peter,bjorn and all the fellow students. honestly we spend so much time in studio it feels like home :).thanks for nice experience.»
- I would like to thanks both you and Bjorn, for the work and the atmosphere that you had create for this studio »
- The teacher is very good!! The environment in the class very bad. The room very bad. »
- as an only english speaking student, i feel that i sometimes missed a lot of information when the course is promote as taught in english (some of the main documents for the brief were in swedish - study visit to Brinkasen - conversations with lecturers were sometimes in swedish, as well as some of the dialogue in the final presentation). Having said that, Peter did very well most of the time to have the message translated. Overall, a fantastically run course!!»
- I think the most different part of hospital design from other buildings is the special function. So, maybe it will be better to choose a more functional hospital to design but not psychiatry hospital. cos there is no operation room or other strict functional room for psychiatry hospital. »
- A really good course which deals with many problematics in a well-orginized way! »
- The fact that we actually didn"t have to solve the whole building/brief could have been announced a bit earlier, to reduce some of the stress. Göran Lindahl"s lecture was a bit hard to relate to the project. The lecture about logistics was good. We discussed that they should come later on for consultation but they never did. That would have been helpful.»
- Very good approach to the working situation. The studio really worked well together and improved the quality of each individual project.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från